Logical problem of evil
Presented by Epicurus, it highlights an inconsistency between the divine attributes of God and the
presence of evil. An all-powerful God would be able to prevent evil and suffering, an all-loving and
wholly good God would care enough to prevent evil and suffering, and an omniscient God would
know about evil and suffering in the world and know how to create a world without it. Therefore
these attributes are incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering.
Counter-arguments:
- Suffering is used to test people and their reactions determine if they should go to heaven or
not.
- The story of Job shows that evil and suffering are beyond human understanding but are part
of God’s plan.
- It allows us to grow closer to Jesus who also suffered.
- Without evil, there can be no good. If everything in the universe was small, nothing would
be big.
Hume’s inconsistent triad is a version of the logical problem of evil. It has three elements that are
incompatible all together: omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the existence of evil.
Solutions to the inconsistent triad:
- Process theology, developed by Hartshorne and Whitehead, chooses to remove the
attribute of omnipotence, so God becomes an empathetic fellow sufferer.
- Others, such as Dostoyevsky advocate that God must be malevolent and not worthy of
worship.
- Mary Eddy Baker removes the statement element of ‘evil exists’, arguing that pain, evil and
sickness are illusions and not real. Suffering is all in the mind.
Evidential problem of evil
William Rowe argues that the overwhelming amount of evil in the world that lacks any purpose is
evidence against God. An omniscient, omnipotent and wholly good God would not allow ‘seemingly
pointless human and animal suffering’. He uses the example of a fawn burnt and trapped by a forest
fire that “lies alive in terrible agony for several days” before dying. Belief in God is irrational. This
argument evidences the non-existence of God but does not prove it.
Support:
- Richard Dawkins highlights that even without humans, the suffering of the animal kingdom
is immense.
- Dostoyevsky argues that a God who allows theisextent of innocent suffering is not worth
worshipping. There is nothing that could justify a five-year-old girl being raped, beaten and
strangled to death. No good comes from it.
Counter-arguments:
- Swinburne argues that such suffering provides greater motivation to e.g find cures for
disease. Suffering allows for human accomplishment and advancement.
- In heaven, everyone is rewarded for their suffering.
Presented by Epicurus, it highlights an inconsistency between the divine attributes of God and the
presence of evil. An all-powerful God would be able to prevent evil and suffering, an all-loving and
wholly good God would care enough to prevent evil and suffering, and an omniscient God would
know about evil and suffering in the world and know how to create a world without it. Therefore
these attributes are incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering.
Counter-arguments:
- Suffering is used to test people and their reactions determine if they should go to heaven or
not.
- The story of Job shows that evil and suffering are beyond human understanding but are part
of God’s plan.
- It allows us to grow closer to Jesus who also suffered.
- Without evil, there can be no good. If everything in the universe was small, nothing would
be big.
Hume’s inconsistent triad is a version of the logical problem of evil. It has three elements that are
incompatible all together: omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the existence of evil.
Solutions to the inconsistent triad:
- Process theology, developed by Hartshorne and Whitehead, chooses to remove the
attribute of omnipotence, so God becomes an empathetic fellow sufferer.
- Others, such as Dostoyevsky advocate that God must be malevolent and not worthy of
worship.
- Mary Eddy Baker removes the statement element of ‘evil exists’, arguing that pain, evil and
sickness are illusions and not real. Suffering is all in the mind.
Evidential problem of evil
William Rowe argues that the overwhelming amount of evil in the world that lacks any purpose is
evidence against God. An omniscient, omnipotent and wholly good God would not allow ‘seemingly
pointless human and animal suffering’. He uses the example of a fawn burnt and trapped by a forest
fire that “lies alive in terrible agony for several days” before dying. Belief in God is irrational. This
argument evidences the non-existence of God but does not prove it.
Support:
- Richard Dawkins highlights that even without humans, the suffering of the animal kingdom
is immense.
- Dostoyevsky argues that a God who allows theisextent of innocent suffering is not worth
worshipping. There is nothing that could justify a five-year-old girl being raped, beaten and
strangled to death. No good comes from it.
Counter-arguments:
- Swinburne argues that such suffering provides greater motivation to e.g find cures for
disease. Suffering allows for human accomplishment and advancement.
- In heaven, everyone is rewarded for their suffering.
